Non-medical devices for chronic breathlessness: use, barriers and facilitators for patients, carers and clinicians - a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Non-medical devices such as the handheld fan (fan), mobility aids (wheeled walkers with seats) and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) devices offer benefits for patient management of chronic breathlessness. We examined the published evidence regarding patient, carer and clinician use of the fan, mobility aids and IMT devices for chronic breathlessness management, and the potential barriers and facilitators to day-to-day use in a range of settings. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Papers were imported into EndNote and Rayyan for review against a priori eligibility criteria. Outcome data relevant to use were extracted and categorised as potential barriers and facilitators, and a narrative synthesis exploring reasons for similarities and differences conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (n=5 fan, n=2 mobility aids and n=0 IMT devices). All of the studies presented patient use of non-medical devices only. Patients found the fan easy to use at home. Mobility aids were used mainly for outdoor activities. Outdoor use for both devices were associated with embarrassment. Key barriers included: appearance; credibility; self-stigma; technical specifications. Common facilitators were ease of use, clinical benefit and feeling safe with the device. CONCLUSION: The efforts of patients, carers and clinicians to adopt and use non-medical devices for the management of chronic breathlessness is impeded by lack of implementation research. Future research should improve knowledge of the barriers and facilitators to use. This would enhance understanding of how decision-making in patient-carer-clinician triads impacts on non-medical devices use for breathlessness management

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society